Collectivists Hate Individuality, Tribalism And ‘Fast And Furious 7′?

FA Note: Excel­lent com­men­tary on the focused effort by much of soci­ety to destroy indi­vid­ual rights

Some­times in the lib­er­ty move­ment — with dis­cus­sions of poten­tial col­lapse, war, rev­o­lu­tion, social desta­bi­liza­tion, etc. — it is easy to get so caught up in the periph­er­al con­flict between the elites and the cit­i­zen­ry that we for­get what the whole thing is real­ly about. That is to say, we tend to over­look the very core of the con­flict that is shap­ing our epoch.

Some would say that it is a sim­ple mat­ter of good ver­sus evil. I don’t nec­es­sar­i­ly dis­agree, but good and evil are not defined method­olo­gies; rather, they are inher­ent arche­types — facts born in the minds and hearts of all men. It’s a gift of com­pre­hen­sion from some­thing greater than our­selves. They are felt, rather than defined, and attempts by insti­tu­tions (reli­gious, sci­en­tif­ic, legal or oth­er­wise) to force moral­i­ty away from intu­itive rea­son and into a realm of arti­fi­cial hier­ar­chi­cal and math­e­mat­i­cal stan­dards tend to lead only to even more imbal­ance, destruc­tion, inno­cent deaths and gen­er­al immoral­i­ty.

There have been many night­mare regimes through­out his­to­ry that have claimed to under­stand and obey moral “laws” and stan­dards while at the same time hav­ing no per­son­al or spir­i­tu­al con­nec­tion to those stan­dards. In oth­er words, some of the most heinous acts of immoral­i­ty are often stamped with the approval of sup­pos­ed­ly moral social and gov­ern­men­tal insti­tu­tions.

This is why a per­son who calls him­self a moral Chris­t­ian, a moral Mus­lim, a moral athe­ist, a moral leg­is­la­tor, a moral con­ser­v­a­tive, a moral lib­er­al, a moral social jus­tice war­rior, etc. is not nec­es­sar­i­ly a per­son who ulti­mate­ly acts with moral con­vic­tion. It is not enough for one to mem­o­rize and fol­low the code of a belief sys­tem or legal sys­tem blind­ly. One must also under­stand the tenets of inborn nat­ur­al law and of the human soul that make those codes mean­ing­ful (if they have retained any mean­ing), or he will even­tu­al­ly fall prey to the vicious calami­ties of dog­ma and the col­lec­tive shad­ow.

If I were to exam­ine the core method­olo­gies that are at odds in our soci­ety today, I would have to say that the whole fight comes down not only to good ver­sus evil, but to col­lec­tivism ver­sus indi­vid­u­al­ism. The same demands of under­stand­ing also apply to this dichoto­my.

Near­ly all human beings nat­u­ral­ly grav­i­tate toward social struc­tures. This is not under debate. The best of us seek to work with oth­ers for the bet­ter­ment of our own posi­tion in terms of sur­vival and suc­cess, but also the bet­ter­ment of our species as a whole, if pos­si­ble. Beyond this, peo­ple often find solace and a sense of epiphany when dis­cov­er­ing con­nec­tions to oth­ers; the act of recog­ni­tion and shared expe­ri­ence that is in itself a reli­gious expe­ri­ence. This is what I would call “com­mu­ni­ty,” as opposed to “col­lec­tivism.”

Col­lec­tivism is a bas­tardiza­tion and manip­u­la­tion of the inher­ent desire most peo­ple have to build con­nec­tions to those around them. It takes the con­cept of com­mu­ni­ty to the extreme end of the spec­trum, and in the process, removes all that was orig­i­nal­ly good about it. In a col­lec­tivist sys­tem, indi­vid­u­al­ism becomes a threat and a detri­ment to the func­tion­al­i­ty of soci­ety. In a com­mu­ni­ty, indi­vid­u­al­ism is seen as a valu­able resource that brings a diver­si­ty of ideas, skills and unique views, mak­ing the group stronger. Col­lec­tivism believes the hive mind is more effi­cient. Com­mu­ni­ty believes vol­un­tary action and indi­vid­ual achieve­ment makes soci­ety health­i­er in the long run.

Our cul­ture in gen­er­al today is being bom­bard­ed with mes­sages that aggran­dize col­lec­tivism and stig­ma­tize com­mu­ni­ty and indi­vid­u­al­ism. This is not by mere chance; it is in fact a pro­gram of indoc­tri­na­tion. I came across a rather strange and in some ways hilar­i­ous exam­ple of this while sift­ing through the pro­pa­gan­da plat­form known as Reuters.

As most lib­er­ty move­ment activists are well aware, Reuters is a long­time haven for Fabi­an social­ists who despise hon­est report­ing (to them media is a means of con­trol­ling the pop­u­lace, not inform­ing it) and who con­sis­tent­ly inject con­cepts of col­lec­tivist (i.e., glob­al­ist) ide­ol­o­gy into their arti­cles.

The Reuters opin­ion piece linked here and writ­ten by Lynn Stu­art Par­ramore presents itself as a kind of social exam­i­na­tion of film and its reflec­tion of the decline of Amer­i­can civ­i­liza­tion. Rather odd­ly, the film cho­sen as a lit­mus test was “Fast And Furi­ous 7.” Yes, that’s right. The “Fast and Furi­ous” fran­chise appar­ent­ly con­tains social com­men­tary so dis­turb­ing to Reuters’ con­tribut­ing “cul­tur­al the­o­rists” that they felt com­pelled to write a short the­sis on it.

First, I would like to point out that when I first read the arti­cle the orig­i­nal title was “‘Fast decline of post­war Amer­i­ca & furi­ous desire to cling to ‘fam­i­ly.’”

It appears that Reuters has since “amend­ed” the title to stand out a lit­tle less as a col­lec­tivist expose. Just to be clear, I have no inter­est in dis­cussing the con­tent of the “Furi­ous 7″ film. My com­men­tary will focus not on the film but on Reuters’ com­men­tary regard­ing the film…if that makes sense to you.

So what about the newest Furi­ous film has the col­lec­tivists so con­cerned? As the arti­cle states, “some­thing alarm­ing lurks at the heart of ‘Furi­ous 7.’” The film’s depic­tion of Amer­i­ca as an eco­nom­i­cal­ly wound­ed nation in which good men can­not find a means to make an hon­est and ade­quate liv­ing doesn’t seem to both­er them as much as the response of the main char­ac­ters to such cir­cum­stances. The arti­cle almost rev­els in the post­war degra­da­tion of Amer­i­can liv­ing stan­dards, out­lin­ing how fis­cal decline has led to the dis­rup­tion of the Amer­i­can fam­i­ly and posits that the gold­en era of the 1950’s eco­nom­ic boom is a rel­ic, erased by the rise of a severe “haves and have-nots” divi­sion in the Amer­i­can class sphere. This is, of course, a decid­ed­ly sim­plis­tic view that appeals more to Marx­ists than to any­one with true knowl­edge of the break­down of the U.S.

Reuters takes issue with “Furi­ous 7″ because of what it refers to as the “1950’s fan­ta­sy” nar­ra­tive it clings to, in which the heroes long for a return to the mid­dle-class dream, turn­ing away from the cor­rupt struc­ture of the sys­tem and revert­ing to the “trib­al­ism” of fam­i­lies and poss­es. The “myth of the posse,” they state, “ignores the inter­con­nect­ed­ness of the broad­er soci­ety” and “the idea of a com­mon cul­ture of cit­i­zen­ship recedes into the back­ground, as does faith in a soci­ety based on shared prin­ci­ples of jus­tice.”

I find this con­clu­sion rather fas­ci­nat­ing in its col­lec­tivist bias. We are led to believe by Parramore’s arti­cle that it is the “Ayn Ran­di­an” code of con­tem­po­rary eco­nom­ics and mar­ket effi­cien­cy that has led Amer­i­ca astray. To put it sim­ply, the free mar­ket did this to us.

This is the great lie pro­mot­ed ad nau­se­am by col­lec­tivists today — col­lec­tivists who would like to divert blame for eco­nom­ic fail­ure on more indi­vid­u­al­is­tic mar­ket ideals. The real­i­ty is that Amer­i­ca has NOT sup­port­ed free mar­ket meth­ods for at least a cen­tu­ry. The advent of par­a­sitic cen­tral bank­ing as an eco­nom­ic core in the Fed­er­al Reserve and con­stant gov­ern­ment inter­ven­tion and reg­u­la­tion that have only destroyed small busi­ness rather than kept large busi­ness­es in check has caused the very neg­a­tive finan­cial envi­ron­ment that Par­ramore at least rec­og­nizes as the source of our ills. Cor­po­ra­tions them­selves exist only because of gov­ern­ment reg­u­la­to­ry license, after all, but you won’t ever catch Reuters crit­i­ciz­ing that.

It was col­lec­tivism and the rise of the sta­tist mod­el that bled Amer­i­ca dry, not free-mar­ket meth­ods that have not exist­ed in this coun­try for more than 100 years. The delu­sion that free mar­kets are the prob­lem was the same delu­sion that helped bring down Occu­py Wall Street; the move­ment failed in part because its foun­da­tion­al phi­los­o­phy was built on dis­in­for­ma­tion that rang false with oth­er­wise sym­pa­thet­ic peo­ple.

So an action movie presents a com­pet­ing mod­el to col­lec­tivism, because col­lec­tivism has always been the prob­lem, despite what Reuters has to say. That mod­el is a return to clas­sic human com­mu­ni­ty in the form of fam­i­ly and “trib­al­ism” where reg­u­lar indi­vid­u­als mat­ter, a point the Reuters arti­cle sub­tly mocks as a “fan­ta­sy.” But here we find the col­lec­tivists using the kind of rhetoric one would come to expect from social Marx­ists. The arti­cle con­tin­ues:

“This is what is now hap­pen­ing in many cor­ners of the world, where neglect­ed groups have formed poss­es pos­i­tive­ly blood­thirsty in their quest to assert that they mat­ter on the glob­al stage to show they are not just vic­tims of a rigged game…”

I’m not exact­ly sure what “blood­thirsty groups” Par­ramore is refer­ring to as “poss­es,” but I sus­pect this is a ref­er­ence to the rise of ISIS, among oth­ers. And here we find the Fabi­an social­ist-style pro­pa­gan­da at play.

You see, the Fabi­an ide­ol­o­gy is the dri­ving force behind glob­al­iza­tion — the same glob­al­iza­tion that trig­gered the vast down­ward slide in Amer­i­can pros­per­i­ty; the same glob­al­iza­tion that has gen­er­at­ed anger and dis­sen­sion among the down­trod­den and pover­ty-strick­en; the same glob­al­iza­tion that has cre­at­ed arti­fi­cial eco­nom­ic inter­de­pen­den­cy among nations and the domi­no effect of fis­cal cri­sis around the globe; and the same glob­al­iza­tion that has led to the pre­dom­i­nance of covert agen­cies, covert agen­cies which have been fund­ing “blood­thirsty poss­es” like ISIS for decades. And the source phi­los­o­phy behind glob­al­iza­tion has always been col­lec­tivism — the “inter­con­nect­ed­ness of broad­er soci­ety” that Par­ramore pro­claims as lost in the pages of the “Furi­ous 7″ screen­play.

Par­ramore ends with a stark warn­ing to us all:

“… a return to trib­al instincts and the let­ting go of the broad­er com­mon bonds and the wel­fare of the greater human fam­i­ly has a dark side. It is ulti­mate­ly a dan­ger­ous road to trav­el.”

Those of us who sup­port the idea of local­ized com­mu­ni­ty (i.e., trib­al­ism) and the val­ue of the indi­vid­ual over the arbi­trary col­lec­tive are, sup­pos­ed­ly, play­ing with fire; and we should be scared, very scared. We would not want to be labeled as “blood­thirsty mon­sters” hell-bent on dis­turb­ing the tran­quil­i­ty of the “greater human fam­i­ly.” Oh, boy.

When I read this kind of agen­da-based garbage, I am remind­ed of the insan­i­ty of slight­ly more open social Marx­ists, such as fem­i­nists, who have through dis­hon­or­able tac­tics con­jured an atmos­phere of col­lec­tive and legal pres­sure designed not to present a bet­ter argu­ment, but to make all oppos­ing argu­ments a sin against the group. That is to say, social Marx­ists do not have a bet­ter argu­ment, so their only option is to make ratio­nal coun­ter­ar­gu­ments social­ly taboo or even ille­gal.

If you want to know where social Marx­ism (col­lec­tivism) is head­ed, this is it: the label­ing of indi­vid­u­al­is­tic philoso­phies as dan­ger­ous thought crimes and trib­al com­mu­ni­ties as time bombs wait­ing to explode in the face of the wider glob­al vil­lage. They des­per­ate­ly hope to con­quer the world by dic­tat­ing not only nation­al bound­aries and civ­il lib­er­ties, but the very moral code by which soci­ety and indi­vid­u­als func­tion. They wish to bypass nat­ur­al law with fear, fear that the col­lec­tive will find you abhor­rent and bar­bar­ic if you do not believe exact­ly as they believe. Indi­vid­u­al­ism will one day be the new misog­y­ny.

Think of it this way: If an undoubt­ed­ly for­get­table movie like “Furi­ous 7″ can’t even por­tray a fic­tion­al step away from the abyss of col­lec­tivist cultism with­out a prophe­cy of doom from Reuters, then is any­one real­ly safe from these lunatics?

Agenda 21 News Ceases Publication

Freedom Advocates, publisher of Agenda 21 News, has decided to cease further publication of Agenda 21 News posts. This discontinuation of the Agenda 21 News Digest takes effect immediately. Agenda21News.com will remain live for at least a month, so that those who would like to review or download articles can do so.

We would like to acknowledge the fine work performed by Katherine Lehman in editing the publication for the last year.

We encourage readers to become aware of two other Agenda 21 related websites to provide you with regular Agenda 21 news inputs:

Thank you for your interest in Agenda 21 News.

Agenda 21 — Sustainable Development

To help keep you up-to-date on the transformation, Agenda21News delivers relevant news and information. You will see concrete examples and explanations of Sustainable Development and its many faces - Smart Growth, Regionalism, Charter Schools, Common Core, ICLEI, the Wildlands Network, Public-Private Partnerships, and much more.

In summary, Sustainable Development seeks (1) the abolition of private property; (2) "global citizenship” with allegiance to a tyrannical system; (3) complete top down control utilizing technology (technocracy) and neighborhood snitches; and (4) to create discordance within the human population.